D&D 5E What, if anything, bothers you about certain casters/spells at your table?

[SkidAce]

Too many 4e cooties for that to get a pass.

Nah, its a good idea, we've been doing it for quite a while.

 

[M_Natas]

I'm a little confused.

Don't your players announce their actions before they roll? So, they declare, "I move here and attack. (pick up dice)" at which point the DM can interrupt with, "The creature does X when you move". Sure, it interrupts that action, but, since nothing has been actually resolved yet, there's no problem IMO.

OTOH, "I move here. I attack. I roll X. and I do Y damage" makes these reroll mechanics quite a bit more powerful. And they'Re not really supposed to be reroll mechanics. You're not supposed to know if they will work before you use them. Shield occurs when you are targeted, not when you know how much you've been hit by. Being able to only use Shield when it works, makes it quite a bit more powerful. And, it's never wasted - after all, you should cast Shield even if the attack misses. Meaning you should be wasting spell slots fairly often.

That's the difference. Most of the interrupt powers are on the player side anyway. It's a fairly rare monster that has them. Not impossible, but not common. But with most of these powers, you're not supposed to be able to use them only when you know when they are needed. It's just like the Defense Style fighter. YOu are supposed to declare that Disadvantage on an attack before the dice are rolled.

But, it's really hard to actually do that in play. Like you say, everything gets declared at the same time. Which makes all these interrupts a lot more powerful than they are meant to be because the mechancis are very clunky.

Like one of the most common Tipps all over the Internet to speed up combat is to roll attack roll and damage roll at the same time you declare your attack.

Somewhere was a thread about the actual play time of a combat round and the range was from 2 minutes to 30 minutes. Ah, found it: https://www.enworld.org/threads/len...cting-data-from-my-games-updated-2-11.701556/

You don't get to two minutes for 4 players and the DM declaring attacks/actions by waiting for interrupts I would think ^^.

I think at least in Combat rolling dice while declaring the attack is quite common and makes actually sense, because combat is very formalised. The need for an attack roll is written in, while outside of combat a roll is only needed if the DM thinks one is needed.

In a BG3 interrupt reactions are prompted when the trigger occurs. That works there when because it is a computer game and the computer can interrupt something in a millisecond.

But I don't know if that could be fixed.
That why I would change the order of play for things like counterspell to "declare spell for next turn on end of your turn" and other players can interrupt that now on their turn before the caster has his next turn. Or players need to declare stuff before hand: "when this guy attacks here, my defense reaction will trigger". But I don't know if that is feasible.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

Rolling the attack roll and damage roll at the same time can be a waste of a good damage roll though.

 

[leozg]

WotC's rulings over rules mentality is really just lazy game design

Not just lazy, it is broken.
Just to give a simple example: Absorb elements.
First sentence states you store the energy for your next melee attack, but third sentence states the bonus from that stored energy is used only on your next turn.
What happens if you walk through a bonfire? Do you have the bonus in this turn or have to wait for your next turn?
First sentence is just 'flavor'? Designers forgot you can have a Reaction on your own turn?
One more case for the DM to solve. It's been 50 years of game, this kind of problem should not exist.

 

[ezo]

Not just lazy, it is broken.
Just to give a simple example: Absorb elements.
First sentence states you store the energy for your next melee attack, but third sentence states the bonus from that stored energy is used only on your next turn.
What happens if you walk through a bonfire? Do you have the bonus in this turn or have to wait for your next turn?
First sentence is just 'flavor'? Designers forgot you can have a Reaction on your own turn?
One more case for the DM to solve. It's been 50 years of game, this kind of problem should not exist.

RAW, yes, you would have to wait until your next turn. There really isn't anything to "solve" on this one.

Now, that isn't to say you might not like how the spell works. The explanation for the delay simply could be that it takes until your next turn to covert the damage you absorb into energy you can release with an attack.

Or, you use the RAI based on the first sentence, so if your next attack is on the turn when you used the spell, you can release the energy then.

So, personally, I don't really see that as broken--just unclear--which to me is lazy.

Regardless, the point stands either way. If you don't like rulings over rules, 5E feel incomplete, and asking the DMs to houserule every instance of "laziness" basically means you paid for rulebooks that are just the meat and bones of the game, you have to provide the rest.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Are the designers "lazy" or is it the DMs who are "lazy" because they can't be bothered to take 3 seconds to make a ruling?

 

[Hussar]

Are the designers "lazy" or is it the DMs who are "lazy" because they can't be bothered to take 3 seconds to make a ruling?

But, that's the point. It's "3 seconds" over and over and over again. Class after class, session after session. And, once you get through the spells, you get a whole new set of "3 seconds" every other level as a new suite of spells comes in yet again.

And, let's be honest here. It's often not just, "3 seconds".

Asking that the language of the game be tightened up a bit to cover silly crap like Absorb Elements isn't exactly asking for the moon. Why on earth would you want "rulings not rules" for something as basic as this?

 

[Stalker0]

Like one of the most common Tipps all over the Internet to speed up combat is to roll attack roll and damage roll at the same time you declare your attack.

Somewhere was a thread about the actual play time of a combat round and the range was from 2 minutes to 30 minutes. Ah, found it: https://www.enworld.org/threads/len...cting-data-from-my-games-updated-2-11.701556/

You don't get to two minutes for 4 players and the DM declaring attacks/actions by waiting for interrupts I would think ^^.

I think at least in Combat rolling dice while declaring the attack is quite common and makes actually sense, because combat is very formalised. The need for an attack roll is written in, while outside of combat a roll is only needed if the DM thinks one is needed.

In a BG3 interrupt reactions are prompted when the trigger occurs. That works there when because it is a computer game and the computer can interrupt something in a millisecond.

But I don't know if that could be fixed.

You could change the structure of how certain spells work. Here's an alternate shield.

Action: Bonus Action
Duration: 1 minute

Once activated, the next time you are hit by an attack during the duration, you gain +5 AC (including against the triggering attack) until the end of your next turn.



So this is still "reactiony" but no longer offers the caster pin point accuracy on when to use it. Its a definite nerf to the spell, but also makes it far simplier to use in game with no real difference as to how the DM does attack rolls/damage rolls, etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But, that's the point. It's "3 seconds" over and over and over again. Class after class, session after session. And, once you get through the spells, you get a whole new set of "3 seconds" every other level as a new suite of spells comes in yet again.

And, let's be honest here. It's often not just, "3 seconds".

Asking that the language of the game be tightened up a bit to cover silly crap like Absorb Elements isn't exactly asking for the moon. Why on earth would you want "rulings not rules" for something as basic as this?

Agreed. A DM is always going to be asked to make ruling in traditional play, because it's impossible to cover every possible situation. And that's one of the places where having a DM over, say, a computer, really shines. But IMO there's no reason for the rules not to try to have an answer for as many situations as possible, so the DM is not constantly required to make rulings to fill in gaps the designers should have addressed.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

RAW, yes, you would have to wait until your next turn. There really isn't anything to "solve" on this one.

Now, that isn't to say you might not like how the spell works. The explanation for the delay simply could be that it takes until your next turn to covert the damage you absorb into energy you can release with an attack.

Or, you use the RAI based on the first sentence, so if your next attack is on the turn when you used the spell, you can release the energy then.

So, personally, I don't really see that as broken--just unclear--which to me is lazy.

Regardless, the point stands either way. If you don't like rulings over rules, 5E feel incomplete, and asking the DMs to houserule every instance of "laziness" basically means you paid for rulebooks that are just the meat and bones of the game, you have to provide the rest.

Is it really that incomplete? Is a tight, hard-coded game really what most people want from D&D?

I mean, these are personal questions with answers reflecting our subjective tastes. There are no wrong answers here. While there may be some generalizations we can make based on the success of the current edition, those generalizations can easily break down when we focus in on the table-by-table level and/or the individual level.

That said, there are certainly examples of vaguely/poorly/contradictory worded spells (or feats or whatever), but are those really that widespread? Are the rules that broken/lazy/incomplete that a DM can't make a quick determination for the table once in a while, which carries forward from that point on, and move on to the good stuff? Ultimately, we each determine how we choose to react to these things and how we adjust (or not adjust) our games accordingly.

Frankly, speaking for myself, I'd be thrilled if it was more common for a player to want to debate over the RAI of a spell than it is for a player to not bother (or take the time) to learn how a spell really works in the first place. But that's perhaps my own hang-up and, as a 5e DM, ultimately just something I signed up for: explaining the rules and making rulings, as applicable.